MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032136252

Superficial venous thrombosis of the upper limb presenting to a chiropractic clinic: a case report.

2020· article· en· W3032136252 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Mastragostino, Chadwick Chung

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChiropracticUpper limbVenous thrombosisBicepsSurgeryThrombosis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To present the clinical case of a patient with an upper extremity superficial venous thrombosis (SVT), and to highlight the importance for clinicians working in musculoskeletal care settings, to considered non-musculoskeletal causes for their patients' presentations. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 31-year-old male presented to an academic chiropractic clinic with progressive left sided tension over the medial arm, extending to the anterior aspect of his proximal forearm. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was initially diagnosed with possible biceps/brachialis muscular strain and peripheral entrapment of the median nerve. A course of treatment involving soft tissue therapy was initiated. Unfortunately, the patient's symptoms worsened, and on further evaluation, near full occlusion and phlebitis of the left cephalic vein was discovered. Symptoms dissipated over the next few days with conservative medicinal efforts. SUMMARY: Although not often viewed as a serious condition, or factored in the differential diagnoses of musculoskeletal practitioners, to not consider SVT as a cause of a patient's symptoms may lead to a protracted clinical course and increased discomfort for the patient, and in rare cases, more serious consequences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207